[u'r not alone小组]提纲作业 Argument31

Luise8891UID: 2906459

:p Argument31:The following appeared in the editorial section of a newsmagazine.

"Some states are creating new laws that restrict the use of of handheld cell phones by drivers of automobiles. Such legislation, however, is sheer folly. Although some people with cell phones undoubtedly cause problems on the road, including serious accidents, the majority do not. Besides, problems are also caused by drivers who are distracted by any number of other activities, from listening to the radio to disciplining children. Since there is no need to pass legislation restricting these and other such activities, it follows that there is no need to restrict people's freedom to use a device that they find convenient—or helpful in emergencies."

dreamerdanceUID: 2759402

1.论断的前提不成立。论断说大部分打手机的人没有出事故。论者也没有提供任何资料支持他的这点。有多少人开车打手机？有多少人出了事故？从论断中看不出来出事故的只是少数。另外是否大部分人不出事故，只有少部分出事故就没有必要立法？事故率达到多少才需要立法，这一点论者也没有提供资料。是否大部分的人不抢银行，就没有必要立法限制人抢银行呢？ •

2.论断的另一个前提是因为没有必要立法限制其他导致事故的行为，就没有必要立法限制人们使用手机的自由。但没有证据表明大家或政府认为没有必要立法限制他所说的那些行为。论者也没有提供资料说明这类事故与开车打手机导致的事故有何种可比性。照顾小孩是有必要的，听收音机也是不会影响驾车的，但是接听电话会严重分散注意力，很危险。如果那些行为导致交通事故也像手机一样多，还是存在有可能会引起大家重视，要求立法限制的。

3.•论断的结论很荒谬。论者的结论说没有必要限制人们在紧急情况下很有帮助很方便的工具，他把开车与紧急情况等同起来。但是首先是他没有证据让我们相信那些开车打手机的人都是因为有紧急情况，其次也没有告诉我们是否立法也会限制人们在开车以外的紧急情况下使用手机。论者突然把两者等同很荒谬。(紧急情况下使用手机和限制开车时使用手机没有必然联系)

结论：论者没有任何证据想当然地认为没有必要对开车打手机立法。要想加强说服力，论者还需要提供有关有多少开车打手机的人出了事故，比例是多少，是否人们觉得对其他的事故原因也没有必要立法。

Luise8891UID: 2906459

1）        In the first place, the arguer fails to convince us that since majorities do not cause problems on the road, then legislation is not necessary. First, no evidence has been given to prove that the majority with cellphone do not cause problem. How many people use cell phone when driving? Among them, how many people caused problems on the road?  It’s highly likely that people seldom use cell phone while driving and a large percentage of people who use cell phone caused problems.  Secondly, we cannot downplay the problems that might be caused by cell phone in driving. We cannot cancel legilation because majority do not caused problems using cell phone while driving. There must be a criterion or a standard on the percentage of possibility of accident for the legilation.
2）        In the second place, the assumption that since there is no need to pass legislation restricting activities which might distract drivers, there is no need to restrict people’s freedom to use handed cell phones.  First, no evidence has been given to show that there is no need to pass legilation restricting these activities above. If people finds out that listening music is responsible for large percentage of activities, probably, they would pass legislation.  Second, the arguer fails to convince us that these activities are comparable. There must be a degree of severity of activity. Different activities has different digrees. For example, having sex during driving, or listening to music when driving, and using cell phone while driving are all activities. People seldom have sex when they drive, because they know it is very dangerous. But listening music are common for drivers when they drive. Maybe using cell phone is more dangerous than listening music.